Fruit of the poisoned tree question.

NOTE: Depending on how this scenario resolves, I may come up with a scenario with real-world applications; if so, I will perhaps share the tale of how the scenario was inspired.

Let’s say a legitimate businessman (we’ll call him Bugsy Capone) has been feathering his nest at the expense of his business associates (partners, investors, employees, customers, and suppliers). He’s been succeeding at this by keeping multiple sets of books, which has allowed him to reap ill-gotten gains while surviving inquiries from his victims and their agents. He does not have sufficient mental prowess to keep track of everything without writing it all down, and he keeps his records in a wall safe in his office, along with a nice bankroll for contingencies.

Enter Jimmy Valentine, safe-cracker extraordinaire. Jimmy has caught wind of Bugsy Capone’s cache o’ cash, and decided to convert it to his own use. Accordingly, he surreptitiously enters Bugsy’s office one night, finds the wall safe, and opens it. Acting on the presumption that everything in a wall safe is there for a reason, and that reason is that the items in question have value, he cleans out the wall safe, and takes the multiple sets of books as well as the cash. The cash he secrets in a location where he can gain ready access to it; the books, he brings to his own offices, and puts them in his filing cabinet for later perusal.

Let us now direct our attention to one Dana Ladd, a special agent with the FBI. By an almost implausible set of coincidences, Special Agent Ladd has, among the files in his caseload, separate investigations into the activities of both Jimmy Valentine and Bugsy Capone. He hasn’t been getting far on the Capone investigation, but he recently got a pretty good lead that Valentine took on a contract for industrial espionage on behalf of defense contractor Lockheed-Grumman, who have been consistently underbid lately on defense contracts by their competitor Northrup-Martin (and have gotten pretty tired of it). On the strength of this lead, Ladd has obtained a warrant to search Valentine’s office for evidence of criminal activity, specifically the industrial espionage case. In executing this warrant, Special Agent Ladd takes control of the entire contents of Jimmy’s offices, and his team gets to work doing some perusing of their own. Inevitably, Bugsy Capone’s multiple sets of books are found, and recognized as being relevant to another of Dana’s assignments.

Question: Presuming that incriminating evidence in the industrial espionage case was also uncovered, Jimmy is obviously screwed. Is Bugsy Capone also undone, or is the illicit manner in which his papers found their way into Jimmy’s possession somehow a “fruit of the poisoned tree” issue?

Ancillary question: If no evidence of Jimmy’s participation in the industrial espionage case is found, does this in any way alter the usefulness of the Capone books in that investigation?

The fruit of the poisoned trees only applies to actions take by the police or on their behalf. Since the police did not direct or otherwise induce Jimmy Valentine to rob Bugsy Capone, they are free to use what they find.

Okay, let’s add another actor, Humphrey Widmark. He’s an acquaintance of Jimmy Valentine, who sometimes makes pin money by being a paid informant for Special Agent Ladd. In an off-the-record conversation, the other day, Dana mentioned to Humphrey that Bugsy is the kind of guy who spends money as though he has a secret slush fund, but that it would probably take a safe-cracker of, say, Jimmy Valentine’s caliber to gain access to it.

Dana wasn’t motivated by an expectation to get the goods on Bugsy, but he had been dressed down earlier that day by Deputy Director Skinner over his lack of progress in the Capone matter. In his pique, he felt that it would serve Bugsy right to have to contend with the loss of a few thousand bucks, so he made the speculation to Widmark, in the hope that it would make its way to Valentine. Which it did.

Is the burglary of Capone’s office still not directed or induced by the FBI?

Wait, what was Valentine supposed to think he might get out of this? Is there some implication that he might receive lenient treatment from Agent Ladd in return for getting all that Straight Dope on Bugsy Capone?

Valentine would receive a stack of banknotes.

Ladd would receive the satisfaction of knowing that the guy he got chewed out over was inconvenienced.

ETA: To be clear the introduction of the Widmark wrinkle is pure pettiness on Ladd’s part. The uncovering of the books is pure fortuity.

How does Dana know that Jimmy isn’t a co-conspirator of Bugsy’s?

He doesn’t, for all anybody knows.

I’m attempting to establish how many layers of separation need to exist between LE and a perp before evidence about a third party found in the perp’s possession can be plausibly presented as admissible in the prosecution of the third party.

This news story from several years ago is in many ways similar to the scenario being described in the OP. Two burglars broke into someone’s barn, found illegal porn, reported it to the police, and the police subsequently arrested the man whose barn had been broken into. So, evidence that was obtained this way can indeed be used by law enforcement.

Similarly, in the book ACAB the author describes how one career criminal used his finding of a substantial quantity of Russian military armament as a get out of jail card.

Jumping in here to say this quickly. “Fruit of the poisonous tree” – I’d never heard of that phrase before but two weeks ago it was used on an episode of Manhunt: Unabomber and now here you are talking about it here too.

Funny how that happens.

English law doesn’t recognise this doctrine, nor Scots law either. It is mainly an American idea, and to some extent Russian and French courts agree with it.

The Law Society Gazette has an article from two days back, saying Currently, in English civil proceedings, there is no rule of law that evidence must be excluded because it has been obtained illegally and improperly.

And delightfully adds: When compared with a number of other countries, the courts of England and Wales are currently considerably more flexible in admitting evidence obtained by illegal means.

I like that word, flexible.
As for Scotland: *The guiding principle in Scots law is Lawrie v Muir 1950 JC 19, which states that an irregularity in the method by which evidence has been obtained does not necessarily make that evidence inadmissible in a criminal prosecution *

UK Human Rights Blog 2011

Personally I agree an over-scrupulosity may work opposite to justice. Hang 'em all !

The number of layers makes no difference from a legal perspective. If Fred the FBI agent tells Jim who tells Bob who tells Sarah who tells Jane who tells Jimmy Valentine to get the documents from Bugsy then it’s inadmissible. Conversely, if Jimmy robs Bugsy on his own volition it doesn’t matter if Jimmy is an FBI informant.

There have been cases over the year where UPS or FedEx opens a package and turns it over to the police. As I recall, no suppression of the evidence.

That is the situation for many (most?) criminal cases – either someone caught in a minor crime is induced to give information about a bigger criminal, or even becomes a prosecution witness to gain immunity or reduced charges for themself.

So it’s really common.

As an aside, I’m guessing from the OP’s choice of name for the safecracker that they are an O. Henry fan. Am I right?

Or a silent movie/Get Smart fan.

The son of a friend of mine accidentally left his backpack in one of his friend’s apartments. He had two joints in it. It happened that the friend was into some much more serious crimes. My friend’s son-- let’s call him J-- had the backpack traced to him after it was confiscated in a search by warrant of the friend’s-- call him D-- apartment. Because the police were hoping that J had information and would make a deal and testify against D, they arrested him for possession. As it happened, he didn’t know about D’s more serious crimes, and was willing to talk about D’s own drug use, but that wasn’t what the police and DA wanted (I’d be more specific if I could, but I don’t even know all the details). The DA at that point couldn’t just drop the charges against J, but they didn’t want to punish him too harshly, once they realized that he really, truly didn’t know anything. So they gave him community service, and said they would expunge his record if he tested negative for drugs for two years straight of bimonthly testing.

Point is, just happening to accidentally leave his backpack in someone’s apartment started the whole nightmare for J. So I think probably the presence of the cooked books in the legitimately searched place would probably be usable. How they got there would be irrelevant as long as the police did not plant them there.